Please don't compare a masterpiece to this... this... thing. Although not bad, it doesn't compare to its elegant neighbors.

Oh please, get over it. Maki's building is quite nice but does not constitute a 'masterpiece'; overindulgent words like that are used WAY too often in these threads. 111 West Wacker in it's (nearly) completed form is far from a masterpiece, but guess what, most new high-rises the world over (even in NYC, London, Dubai, Kuala Lumpur, Moscow and even Chicago) are NOT masterpieces, and that goes for 4WTC as well. Deal with it.

Like this building or not, you have to admit it fits into the Wacker wall pretty well. If I had any reservations, it's that it blocks the view of the LaSalle-Wacker building (which is a real beauty) from the bridge views further east.

^^Agreed. As a general comment, I think the constant 'what might have been' lamentations about the finalized structure vs. the previous, Teng-designed building are rote - not at all taking into account that there is no longer an empty, 29 story concrete shell on this site, but a contemporary 59 story high-rise that will house hundreds of new people in an area (the Loop) that 10 years ago barely had any population at all. Considering that the original Teng design was mediocre at best, I think the final product is a nice addition to the skyline.

^^Agreed. As a general comment, I think the constant 'what might have been' lamentations about the finalized structure vs. the previous, Teng-designed building are rote - not at all taking into account that there is no longer an empty, 29 story concrete shell on this site, but a contemporary 59 story high-rise that will house hundreds of new people in an area (the Loop) that 10 years ago barely had any population at all. Considering that the original Teng design was mediocre at best, I think the final product is a nice addition to the skyline.

Can I get an Aaaaaaaamen up in here? People on here were creaming over Optima in Streeterville but somehow this is a travesty? Get over it. It's a nice minimalist box at least on par with Optima.

Can I get an Aaaaaaaamen up in here? People on here were creaming over Optima in Streeterville but somehow this is a travesty? Get over it. It's a nice minimalist box at least on par with Optima.

Thank you.

I've found that at least among a few people their opinions are based more on what firm is designing it rather than what structure is in plain view. Clearly there are some personal/professional ill-feelings or "axes to grind" so to speak, perhaps some people wishing a firm they like or one they aspire to work for some day would be getting more high profile projects.

But to those of us who don't have such personal or professional connections it's all about the building. And to me, this thing is basically Optima plus or minus some very superficial differences. It's a glass box--how much variation can you perceive in that? And it's the architectural profession who insisted on pursuing this stripped-down uniformity (perhaps because it makes their jobs easier? That's for another discussion), not us laypeople. Sure, in the pre-modernist era you could see vast differences between buildings, especially with all the ornamentation & various shapes, etc. But now it's just about different ways to do a glass box, and I'm supposed to somehow love one and hate another one even though they are about 99% similar? Sorry...

Apparently neither of you have ever heard the phrase "the devil is in the details". This is not even remotely close to Optima in terms of quality or the overall design. Also, how is this design "minimalist"? It's absolutely the opposite of minimalist and is borderline flashy with the giant arbitrary zig zag. Meanwhile nearly every element of the optima design is derived from some function of the building. The zig zag has literally no function beyond "lets dress this ugly beast up a bit".

Now I am not saying this is a terrible building because it turned out better than I had feared, but it is middle of the pack at best. Optima is certainly in the top quartile.

I've found that at least among a few people their opinions are based more on what firm is designing it rather than what structure is in plain view. Clearly there are some personal/professional ill-feelings or "axes to grind" so to speak, perhaps some people wishing a firm they like or one they aspire to work for some day would be getting more high profile projects.

But to those of us who don't have such personal or professional connections it's all about the building. And to me, this thing is basically Optima plus or minus some very superficial differences. It's a glass box--how much variation can you perceive in that? And it's the architectural profession who insisted on pursuing this stripped-down uniformity (perhaps because it makes their jobs easier? That's for another discussion), not us laypeople. Sure, in the pre-modernist era you could see vast differences between buildings, especially with all the ornamentation & various shapes, etc. But now it's just about different ways to do a glass box, and I'm supposed to somehow love one and hate another one even though they are about 99% similar? Sorry...

I can guarantee there's no personal/ professional axe to grind - you're reading things in both our statements that aren't there, frankly. But honest to God, some of you in this forum can't see the forest through the trees; you cling to what have become hackneyed, one-off statements by architects from decades ago, developing hyper-critical biases that smack of a mob mentality (the Chicago way?), rather than focusing what this residential building represents. And TUP, can you sincerely tell me that, ignoring the apples to oranges debate between this and Optima, that the original, Teng design is better than the final outcome?

^^Agreed. As a general comment, I think the constant 'what might have been' lamentations about the finalized structure vs. the previous, Teng-designed building are rote - not at all taking into account that there is no longer an empty, 29 story concrete shell on this site, but a contemporary 59 story high-rise that will house hundreds of new people in an area (the Loop) that 10 years ago barely had any population at all. Considering that the original Teng design was mediocre at best, I think the final product is a nice addition to the skyline.

Well, I certainly know my feeling on the project and I know what comments I've made regarding it.

I've followed the project since it was 1st announced a decade ago; was there at the original groundbreaking and had the chance to speak about it at plan commission.

I'm taking into account that before it was a 29 story shell that it was a parking lot and my feelings and opinion on the current structure remain. Yeah, it's an okay filler building, but again, meh .

I doubt that on my archi-tours I'll mention it; and if people ask me, I'll be honest about what I think.

Quote:

Can I get an Aaaaaaaamen up in here? People on here were creaming over Optima in Streeterville but somehow this is a travesty? Get over it. It's a nice minimalist box at least on par with Optima.

I know that I wasn't one of the one creaming themselves over Optima. I had David Hovey as a professor and think that he can do better. The current Streeterville building is nice; the upcoming one is underwhelming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel

And TUP, can you sincerely tell me that, ignoring the apples to oranges debate between this and Optima, that the original, Teng design is better than the final outcome?

Apparently neither of you have ever heard the phrase "the devil is in the details". This is not even remotely close to Optima in terms of quality or the overall design. Also, how is this design "minimalist"? It's absolutely the opposite of minimalist and is borderline flashy with the giant arbitrary zig zag. Meanwhile nearly every element of the optima design is derived from some function of the building. The zig zag has literally no function beyond "lets dress this ugly beast up a bit".

Now I am not saying this is a terrible building because it turned out better than I had feared, but it is middle of the pack at best. Optima is certainly in the top quartile.

Fine, the most obvious and glaring difference is the zig zag thing. But what else? What makes it "not even remotely close to Optima in regards to quality or overall design"? And I ask this not to put pressure on you in particular, but because I'd like to understand what details I'm missing.

Fine, the most obvious and glaring difference is the zig zag thing. But what else? What makes it "not even remotely close to Optima in regards to quality or overall design"? And I ask this not to put pressure on you in particular, but because I'd like to understand what details I'm missing.

The entire curtainwall is garbage, just like 550 N LSD it is all wavy glass with absolutely no depth. Optima's glass is actually very good (despite occasional complaints otherwise from people who see a single wrinkled reflection and flip out). This glass just looks washed out, just like 550.

They did a very poor job of addressing the existing site conditions to bring them into line with the new design. The bow in the front of the building could have been corrected fairly easily, but I suspect they didn't want to spend the extra dollar or two a square foot on those floors to extend the edges of the floorplates out to make the front flat and in keeping with the new scheme. The same goes on the rear setback where they created an awkward set of steps in the process of pouring the new transfer floors. Also, the bow further emphasizes the crappy glass by spreading and bending the reflections even further.

There are several spots where the facade grid just randomly changes. Rather than take the extra time to think little aesthetic issues like that out, they just said "fuck it, we can just have a random shift in the grid".

They aren't done with it yet, but the entrance is also looking to be an awkward dud as well.

Overall the design of the building isn't horrible, but the problem is just terrible execution as was the case at 550 N LSD. This is why I think we need to cross our fingers and hope Related doesn't get control of the Spire Site or we will be looking at another half-assed building at another prominent site downtown.

Nice pics harry! Yes that mess up on the glass pattern is like a teacher leaving a random chalk line on the board. If it never gets fixed (I'm sure it will) it would be a good tidbit on an architecture boat cruise tho.

I originally joined this site because my wife and I had fallen in love with the Teng design while living in London. When I found out I had been transferred back to Chicago we put a significant down payment on one of the apartments. I hope that you can understand this entire process has been a huge disappointment. First the failure, next the lawsuit to get our money back and now this 'thing". The new design seems so last minute. Not minimalistic but contemporary. The original "design" created a statement. It was a destination building with a luxurious hotel and lavish apartments. I feel the new owners should have waited. It is a great location with a very mediocre building that will not stand the test of time. As soon as it's finished it will be forgotten. Such a let down.

Just to clarify, my opinion is not that this building is anything amazing. I pretty much give it a 'meh' too, but I'm just glad that it is finally coming to fruition. I'm glad the eyesore concrete shell is gone. I just think some people's comments are over the top about how bad it is. What was exciting about the previous proposal here was the height more than the design. It was thin and tall but I'm not a fan of that Pomo style. I have a feeling that if this version was just as tall people would be praising it. People don't like the 'arbitrary' zig zag but I for one am glad they did something with it. It's not entirely arbitrary anyway because it is incorporated into the balcony sections. How boring this would be without it. 'The glass is wavy'. Oh god. The glass on every single fucking building in the world is wavy. Optima's glass is wavy. It just doesn't have many buildings close enough to it reflecting and showing it is wavy. People have posted photos of it from certain angles that reflect other buildings and it is really wavy. Glass is wavy. People post pictures of buildings reflecting only sky and everyone goes, oh my god that glass is amazing! The same buildings reflecting a building across the street and it's, oh my god that cheap wavy glass is horrendous.